Irish Cycling Legislation

Jimbob1977

seamus wrote: »

They may cycle two abreast in normal circumstances. 3 abreast is permitted where overtaking is occurring.

5 or 6 abreast is probably exaggerating a little, you would need to take up both sides of the carriageway to fit 5 or 6 abreast. However, 3 abreast with very poor group discipline could easily look like 5 or 6 abreast to an observer from the back.



In future if that occurs, the best thing you can do is make a note of the name of the club (most of the riders will be wearing club jerseys), and contact the club chairman to make a complaint.
If you can't identify the club or they're causing major hassle on the road, then a phone call to the local Garda station to send a squad car out is probably best.

Hi Seamus,

The riders were taking up a position from the road edge to the broken white line in the centre of the road. One rider had encroached a few inches onto the opposite side of the road. It was a 'R' grade regional road, so it is reasonably wide.

They were arranged in approx six rows from leader to back riders.

One row was comfortably five to six abreast.

As they were members of a cycling club, I'd guess they should have familiarity with the Rules of the Road?

seamus

Jimbob1977 wrote: »

As they were members of a cycling club, I'd guess they should have familiarity with the Rules of the Road?

Most of not all of them would be drivers too, so they'd have the same familiarity with the rules as anyone else. They would not have any additional familiarity just by virtue of being members of a cycling club. To be fair, you had to ask the rules here, so they similarly may not be aware of the rules

Like I say, the chairman of the club is the man to speak to as most clubs are acutely aware of how their conduct on the road affects their local reputation.

monument

buffalo wrote: »

Though I imagine dedicated cycling infrastructure is ill-defined, and potentially not a roadway.

It could be viewed as a roadway of its own.

Much like when there's access road running along side the main roadway but separated by kerbs/grass verges/footpaths/walls/etc.

PeadarCo

Jimbob1977 wrote: »

Hi Seamus,

The riders were taking up a position from the road edge to the broken white line in the centre of the road. One rider had encroached a few inches onto the opposite side of the road. It was a 'R' grade regional road, so it is reasonably wide.

They were arranged in approx six rows from leader to back riders.

One row was comfortably five to six abreast.

As they were members of a cycling club, I'd guess they should have familiarity with the Rules of the Road?

Just one word of caution on that sometimes it can look like that cycling can be 6 abreast from behind even when they are 2 abreast as the riders may not line up directly behind each other and the difficulty seeing this from a distance.

If what you say is the case its no harm reminding the club. As Seamus says clubs would insist on the rules of the road being followed by their members. Contact details for clubs would be available on the cycling ireland website.

curiosity

Just read the thread, couldn't find a clear answer, so I'll ask...

If a cyclist is approaching a pedestrian on a footpath, is the cyclist obliged to slow/stop/dismount?

A cyclist was coming towards me as I was walking on the footpath earlier today. I stopped him, and pointed out the cycle-lanes on both sides of the road. He said that he was entitled to cycle on the footpath, and that he planned to go either side of me (the footpath would take two people walking abreast).

CramCycle

curiosity wrote: »

He said that he was entitled to cycle on the footpath, and that he planned to go either side of me (the footpath wold take two people walking abreast).

He wasn't

Darkglasses

curiosity wrote: »

Just read the thread, couldn't find a clear answer, so I'll ask...

If a cyclist is approaching a pedestrian on a footpath, is the cyclist obliged to slow/stop/dismount?

A cyclist was coming towards me as I was walking on the footpath earlier today. I stopped him, and pointed out the cycle-lanes on both sides of the road. He said that he was entitled to cycle on the footpath, and that he planned to go either side of me (the footpath would take two people walking abreast).

He definitely cannot cycle on a footpath, unless it's signposted as being for shared use (which it sounds like it wasn't)

Idleater

Darkglasses wrote: »

He definitely cannot cycle on a footpath, unless it's signposted as being for shared use (which it sounds like it wasn't)

Or under 12?

curiosity

Darkglasses wrote: »

He definitely cannot cycle on a footpath, unless it's signposted as being for shared use (which it sounds like it wasn't)

Regular footpath, grass verge, clearly marked cycle-lane (in cinder-colour). The same setup on the other side of the road.

He was far older than 12!

Chips Lovell

curiosity wrote: »

If a cyclist is approaching a pedestrian on a footpath, is the cyclist obliged to slow/stop/dismount?

A cyclist was coming towards me as I was walking on the footpath earlier today. I stopped him, and pointed out the cycle-lanes on both sides of the road. He said that he was entitled to cycle on the footpath, and that he planned to go either side of me (the footpath would take two people walking abreast).

He's not alloyed cycle on the footpath in the first place, let alone have to dismount.

What the law says:

S.I. No. 294/1964 - Road Traffic General Bye-Laws, 1964 wrote:

15.—(1) A driver shall not drive wholly or partly along or across a footway.

(2) This bye-law does not apply to a pram, an invalid carriage not mechanically propelled, or a vehicle being driven across a footway (either to a roadway from a place adjacent to the footway, or from a roadway to such a place).

The Road Traffic Act of 1961, which the above bye-law was drawn up under, makes clear that a “driving” includes managing and controlling and, in relation to a bicycle or tricycle, riding, and “driver” and other cognate words shall be construed accordingly;

curiosity

Thanks for the clarification, folks. Hopefully I won't encounter the situation again!

NeedMoreGears

There's been some chat about undertaking in the "Overly aggressive and dangerous cyclist makes video" thread but I thought this query might fit better here

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057425578&page=8

Undertaking/yielding to left turning vehicles.

I can see that a cyclist is not permitted to undertake in the circumtances described in the SI when both the cyclist and motor vehicle are in the same lane - the motor vehicle has right of way as such. Even if there is a cycle lane, it seems to me that the motor vehicle turning left has right of way in particular circumstances (the car is indicating, dropping off passengers etc) and the cyclist must yield. This would not be the case for two non-cycling lanes. A vehicle in the right lane would not have right of way over vehicles (which includes bicycles) in the left lane.

If the above is correct, and I believe it is, then we have a potentially dangerous situation. People may assume, based on their experience of non-cycling lanes, that they have right of way when they don't.

Is any one aware of any case law or statute law that clarifies the situation?

buffalo

NeedMoreGears wrote: »

Is any one aware of any case law or statute law that clarifies the situation?

What is there to clarify?

NeedMoreGears

If you're in a cycle lane do you have right of way over vehicles in the lane on your right in all circumstances?

buffalo

NeedMoreGears wrote: »

If you're in a cycle lane do you have right of way over vehicles in the lane on your right in all circumstances?

There's nothing mentioned about 'right of way', only that you are allowed to overtake on the left in certain circumstances:

SI 332/2012 wrote:

(b) A pedal cyclist may overtake on the left where vehicles to the pedal cyclist’s right are stationary or are moving more slowly than the overtaking pedal cycle, except where the vehicle to be overtaken—

(i) has signalled an intention to turn to the left and there is a reasonable expectation that the vehicle in which the driver has signalled an intention to turn to the left will execute a movement to the left before the cycle overtakes the vehicle,

(ii) is stationary for the purposes of permitting a passenger or passengers to alight or board the vehicle, or

(iii) is stationary for the purposes of loading or unloading.”,

The yielding to traffic in other lanes is covered only when moving to that lane, not across it:

SI 294/1964 wrote:

PART III. VEHICULAR TRAFFIC.
Obligation to drive on the left and to use traffic lanes
17.—(3) A driver shall not drive from one traffic lane to another without good cause, and without yielding the right of way to traffic in that other lane.

Because there shouldn't be a situation where one would move from a righthand car lane (not a technical term) across a lefthand car lane to make a left turn. In any case I can think of, the lefthand lane would be the left-turn lane, and therefore the car should enter that lane first. Cycle lanes are an exception, and dealt with as such above.

Hope that helps, IANAL, etc.

monument

It's not clear that the overtaking on the left rule is for cycle lanes or not. It seems to be more of cases of overtaking on the left / undertaking where there is no cycle lane.

Cycle lanes should be viewed as bus lanes where "overtaking" on the left is normal practice.

BTW nobody has right of way, as such -- Irish law views it from the perspective of who has to yield right of way.

buffalo

monument wrote: »

It's not clear that the overtaking on the left rule is for cycle lanes or not.

It's clear in that cycle lanes are not mentioned, and therefore it applies in all circumstances, no?

I agree though, a cycle lane should be viewed as a full lane in its own right. This would hopefully mean an end to the design of sending straight-ahead cycle traffic up the inside of left-turning motor traffic.

monument

buffalo wrote: »

It's clear in that cycle lanes are not mentioned, and therefore it applies in all circumstances, no?

The intent of lawmakers comes into it --cycle lanes as with bus lanes were always designed in part to keep their legal users moving even when the lane to the right is congested. So it should have always been expected that users of cycle lanes could be traveling faster than those beside them, thus there was little or no legal issue to solve.

The main issue was undertaking where there was no cycle lane -- and that's what the law change aimed to solve.

I could be wrong but that's my reading of it.

buffalo

The intent is very separate from the effect in law.

As per the opening post in the thread, the only laws I know of regarding 'cycle tracks' cover who can or cannot enter them. I don't know if there's anything that defines what cyclists could or couldn't do when in a cycle track versus when not (except usage when they exist).

Much like the fact that flashing lights were illegal but tolerated, overtaking on the left was illegal even in a cycle lane (except for the same circumstances as motorised vehicles) but tolerated, until both of those things were finally made legal. That would be my reading.

monument

buffalo wrote: »

Much like the fact that flashing lights were illegal but tolerated, overtaking on the left was illegal even in a cycle lane (except for the same circumstances as motorised vehicles) but tolerated, until both of those things were finally made legal. That would be my reading.

In that case buses and taxis in buses overtaking on the left of other traffic are breaking the law?

buffalo

monument wrote: »

In that case buses and taxis in buses overtaking on the left of other traffic are breaking the law?

If the other traffic is not stationary, nor moving more slowly (or a couple of other conditions), technically yes, they are breaking the law. Like I said, illegal but tolerated.

I'm open to correction, but I don't think any exceptions are made to the RotR for buses and taxis in this regard. The term 'moving more slowly' is open to debate however.

mcgratheoin

buffalo wrote: »

If the other traffic is not stationary, nor moving more slowly (or a couple of other conditions), technically yes, they are breaking the law. Like I said, illegal but tolerated.

I'm open to correction, but I don't think any exceptions are made to the RotR for buses and taxis in this regard. The term 'moving more slowly' is open to debate however.

How can you overtake someone if they are not moving more slowly?

buffalo

mcgratheoin wrote: »

How can you overtake someone if they are not moving more slowly?

:D

The full text is:

(4) Notwithstanding paragraph (3) of this bye-law, a driver may overtake on the left—
(c) in slow-moving traffic, when vehicles in the traffic lane on the driver's right are moving more slowly than the overtaking vehicle.

It doesn't define what 'slow-moving traffic' is, but does define the below in the same SI:

" slow vehicle " means—

(a) a vehicle which is not mechanically propelled,

(b) a mechanically propelled vehicle to which an ordinary speed limit of not more than twenty miles per hour applies, and

(c) a mechanically propelled vehicle so constructed or adapted as to be incapable of exceeding 24 miles per hour on a level road ;

So you could argue that slow-moving is less that 24mph, which is 38.6kph.

Again, IANAL, YMMV, etc. Just interested as to what's technically illegal and not in Irish law.

Danjamin1

buffalo wrote: »

If the other traffic is not stationary, nor moving more slowly (or a couple of other conditions), technically yes, they are breaking the law. Like I said, illegal but tolerated.

I'm open to correction, but I don't think any exceptions are made to the RotR for buses and taxis in this regard. The term 'moving more slowly' is open to debate however.

If that was the case wouldn't that make the bus lanes redundant?

monument

buffalo wrote: »

:D

The full text is:


It doesn't define what 'slow-moving traffic' is, but does define the below in the same SI:



So you could argue that slow-moving is less that 24mph, which is 38.6kph.

Again, IANAL, YMMV, etc. Just interested as to what's technically illegal and not in Irish law.

The 24mph is the classification of a "slow vehicle " which cannot exceed that speed.

That's something compleatly diffrent to slow moving traffic.

In any case, if you are right on the point that the law was changed for cycle lanes, we're left with the question: Why change things for bicycles in cycle lanes etc but not for buses and taxis in bus lanes?

Also, flashing lights were never illegal -- they just did not meet the legal standard for lighting a bicycle. The diffrence is important.

buffalo

monument wrote: »

In any case, if you are right on the point that the law was changed for cycle lanes, we're left with the question: Why change things for bicycles in cycle lanes etc but not for buses and taxis in bus lanes?

I never said the law was changed for cycle lanes; the law was changed for cyclists in all situations.

And I don't know, I'm not a lawmaker. But I can't find any legislation that says overtaking on the left for buses and taxis in bus lanes is exempt from the normal overtaking rules. It may well exist somewhere!

Apologies on the flashing lights inaccuracy. Hopefully the point is still understood. I never heard anecdotally of someone being charged with insufficient lighting for only having flashing lights.

galwaycyclist

buffalo wrote: »

It's clear in that cycle lanes are not mentioned, and therefore it applies in all circumstances, no?

I agree though, a cycle lane should be viewed as a full lane in its own right. This would hopefully mean an end to the design of sending straight-ahead cycle traffic up the inside of left-turning motor traffic.

This seems sensible from the cyclists perspective.

However, Irish Traffic law does not appear to include cycle tracks in the the definitions of traffic lane.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/si/0181.html
S.I. No. 181/1997 - Road Traffic (Signs) Regulations, 1997.

Traffic Lane.

12. (1) Traffic sign number RRM 003 shall—

(a) indicate the boundary of a traffic lane, and

(b) consist of a broken white line, consisting of segments approximately 100 millimetres or 150 millimetres wide, 2 metres long and 2 metres apart (or 100 millimetres wide, 4 metres long and 8 metres apart on a motorway).

Cycle tracks - have different dimensions not included in this regulation.

S.I. No. 273/1998 - Road Traffic (Signs) (Amendment) Regulations, 1998
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1998/en/si/0273.html

9. The following shall be subsitituted for article 26 of the Principal Regulations:—

"26. (1) Traffic sign number RRM 022 or traffic sign number RRM 023 shall indicate the right hand edge or the right and left hand edges of a cycle track.

(2) Traffic sign number RRM 022 shall consist of a continuous white line approximately 100 millimetres or 150 millimetres wide.

(3) Traffic sign number RRM 023 shall consist of a broken white line consisting of segments not less than 100 millimetres and not more than 150 millimetres wide, approximately 750 millimetres long and spaced approximately 750 millimetres apart.".

So that leaves it open for someone to argue that cycle tracks are not traffic lanes but are part of the traffic lane they are marked in.

rubadub

Idleater wrote: »

Or under 12?

I don't think there is any lower age limit to cycling on footpaths. I know of one county council that mentioned 12 years but apparently they cut & paste their "rules" from some other website in another country.

I am not sure if there is a definition of a bicycle which would exempt those tiny tots on tricycles with no chain. Or those bikes you see with a handle on the back where the parent is pushing it along like a buggy.

monument

galwaycyclist wrote: »

This seems sensible from the cyclists perspective.

However, Irish Traffic law does not appear to include cycle tracks in the the definitions of traffic lane.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/si/0181.html
S.I. No. 181/1997 - Road Traffic (Signs) Regulations, 1997.



Cycle tracks - have different dimensions not included in this regulation.

S.I. No. 273/1998 - Road Traffic (Signs) (Amendment) Regulations, 1998
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1998/en/si/0273.html



So that leaves it open for someone to argue that cycle tracks are not traffic lanes but are part of the traffic lane they are marked in.

Am I reading that wrong or is a mandatory cycle track not exactly the same as a continuous traffic white lane marking line?

Also bus lanes more clearly do not fit into the defined measurements of a lane... Does that also mean bus lanes are not lanes?

I really don't buy the argument that cycle track lanes (marked correctly with signs and markings) are not lanes in their own right.

galwaycyclist

monument wrote: »

Am I reading that wrong or is a mandatory cycle track not exactly the same as a continuous traffic white lane marking line?

Also bus lanes more clearly do not fit into the defined measurements of a lane... Does that also mean bus lanes are not lanes?

I really don't buy the argument that cycle track lanes (marked correctly with signs and markings) are not lanes in their own right.

Sure you cant drive in bus lanes but bus lanes usually become "traffic lanes" at the junctions so that other traffic can merge into them.

Theoretically the solid line is a line other vehicles can't cross anyway. But at the junctions when the cycle lane is dashed what is its status relative to its neighbouring "traffic lane"?

Nowhere in my reading of the traffic regulations does it say a non-mandatory cycle lane is a separate traffic lane.

It would have been a very obvious and easy thing to define in the regulations but somebody chose not to do so.

Edit 1: I think we need to bear in mind that those who drafted the regulations, like some who implement cycle facilities, may have had a primary goal of managing and controlling an impediment to traffic rather than promoting cycling.

Edit 2: I can think of examples of cycle lanes marked in traffic lanes where there is physically not enough room for a car or bus in the remaining space. The other vehicles must straddle the cycle lane to stay within the rest of the lane. How are such road markings legally possible if the motor traffic must yield to traffic in the cycle lane? Could it be that the designers are acting on advice that there is no such legal requirement - provided the drivers don't endanger anyone in the act of entering the lane? (which would be separate matte anywayr)